• the_flying_pig@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    She was also driving in the direction of the police officers. What else were they supposed to do? Stand out of they way? Not shoot a one year old child?

    • TheVoiceOfRaison@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      We haven’t seen the body warn yet, but the issue is why is shooting at her automatically justified in this context? Driving at officers or not. Why did officers put themselves in the position to be driven at, why not just tail her and pull her over, why not get her registration and go to her address. There are far more alternative options than (as seems to the standard) going for maximum force first.

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Tailing people ends up in high showed chases and kills others, not really an option.

      • bampop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        why is shooting at her automatically justified

        The cop saw her holding up a baby. He was shooting at the baby.

        Presumably this was justifiable self defense because the baby was the reason the mother needed diapers and if she hadn’t needed diapers the cop would not be fearing for his life at that moment

          • the_flying_pig@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            We are being very sarcastic, the disassociation helps me process a tragedy like this. There is absolutely no context that would make this justifiable, the fact that a judge still deemed it so shakes me to my core.